Posted on | July 6, 2012 | 11 Comments
The Supreme Court is again putting up constitutional barriers against laws to redress want and inequity.
Never mind about the Supreme Court actively putting up barriers. The SCOTUS is chartered to interpret the existing barriers, and when it goes putting up resistance to government expansion, the SCOTUS frequently resembles a punctured prophylactic in its retention capability.
But what’s this folderol about “laws to redress want and inequity”? Really? You can legislate away envy? Inequity? We’re assuming (a) a rational comparison function is attainable, and (b) somebody reliable can broker it. But our government doesn’t tax, budget, or spend in a remotely forthright way. Thus, Forbath cannot be seen as making a rational argument. ‘Want’ and ‘inequality’ being so subjective, Forbath is either (a) a complete fool, recirculating his own Kool-Aid, (b) diabolical, and making emotional plays at people who really ought to discern the scam, or (c) a combination of (a) and (b). I’m going with (b), because I don’t think these Lefties actually believe in anything whatsoever.
From the standpoint of sheer hooey, this statement ranks just a little below the all-time stupidest thing I’ve seen in print, also courtesy of the Nattering, Yammering Turd-mongers:
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.
What idiots. The government is the traffic cop, not the automotive engineer. And when the traffic cop tries to exceed his bounds, it all comes up jackwagons. Would the NYT just please hurry up and die? We’re going to have a right jolly party, dancing on its bones.
Update: now a Memeorandum thread.